Appeal No. 1999-0635 10
Application No. 08/688,825
disclosed by Christison for the purpose of substituting a
mechanical equivalent for another to obtain the advantages
inherent therein, such as precluding the pinching of one's
fingers within the links 19 of Christison" (answer, page 4).
We do not agree.
As pointed out by the appellant on pages 3 and 4 of the
brief, Hutchinson does not teach and would not have suggested
provision of the mesh material (7) as a free standing
structure for use as a barrier to intruders. On the contrary,
Hutchinson would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art that the disclosed mesh material (7) would not have
been sufficient as a barrier; if the mesh material were
considered sufficient, there would have been no need for the
guard gate (5). Thus, we agree with the appellant that, even
if the teachings of Christison and Hutchinson were combined,
the combined teachings would not have suggested replacement of
the extensible gate of Christison with the mesh material of
Hutchinson. While these references may have suggested
provision of an extensible guard comprising a reel of wire
mesh mounted to one side of the extensible toggle-joint gate
of Christison in a pinch-protecting capacity, such an
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007